On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > If so, then how many other bugs are lurking in the hash index code
> > > waiting to bite?
> >
> > <shrug> Who's to say? We've found bugs in the btree logic recently,
> > too.
>
> I'd rather print a loud warning when a hash index is created, but keep
> the code in the tree, than just remove it entirely. That way, we'll
> avoid unnecessary bit-rot to some degree, and if someone feels that
> they absolutely positively need hash indexes, they will have some
> existing work to begin from.
Sorry, but if hash indexes really do present a possible race condition
where you could get a short read WITH NO ERROR, then they should at least
be commented out and if you create one USING HASH we should print a notice
that we're actually creating a btree for you and hash has been deprecated
at this point.
I can see leaving the code in as something to work on, but you shouldn't
have to worry about whether or not your database is gonna have a short
read without an error.
Postgresql's philosophy has always seemed to be correctness first,
convenience and performance second. I like that philosophy, compared to
many other databases out there.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
